Seeking only publicity: New Bloomberg lawsuit to try an resuscitate their universal background check initiative

Three plaintiffs in Nevada are trying to resuscitate the universal background check initiative that barely passed last fall.  Yet, this lawsuit has virtually no chance of succeeding.  It is merely a lame publicity stunt by the Bloomberg people.  Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt explained the reason pretty simply:

And for these private transfers or sales, Nevada state law specifically requires that the background check must be performed by the FBI, not through Nevada’s Central Repository.  We understand that the choice to have the Act require that the check be run by the FBI and not through Nevada’s Central Repository was deliberate and specifically influenced by the intent of the Act’s proponents to avoid a state fiscal impact that could have made initiative less attractive to voters.

The initiative won by less than 0.8 percentage points, and it is quite probable if they had to campaign that this initiative would have had substantial costs, it very likely would have lost.  In addition, the state of Nevada has already asked the FBI twice during the Obama administration, not just the one time that is indicated.  Nevada has already offered to contact a third time, but the lawsuit wants the state to convince the FBI to spend money that the Bloomberg people who drafted this initiative purposely didn’t try to have spent by the state.  It is a stupid lawsuit that is just done to get the type of publicity.

Unfortunately, much of the news coverage is missing these points.

At Fox News on new California Initiative to require background checks on ammunition purchases

Fox News has a news story on a new initiative being offered by California’s Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom.  The initiative has includes proposals either not approved by the the Democrat controlled legislature because they were viewed as unworkable or vetoed by the governor.

. . .  Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., an economist and world recognized expert on guns and crime who founded and heads the Crime Prevention Research Center, a research and education organization dedicated to conducting academic quality research on the relationship between laws regulating the ownership or use of guns, crime, and public safety, called the initiative “racist.” 

“The question is who are you stopping from owning a firearm or getting hold of ammunition – in this case it is law-abiding, poor blacks and Hispanics who won’t be able to afford the cost of ammunition, which will rise with the cost associated with required background checks for ammunition purchases.” . . . 

Lott said many of the claims by Newsom and the Safety for All ballot initiative website are inaccurate, something that also drew the attention of Politifact, the independent fact-checking organization that won a Pulitzer Prize for calling out politicians' false claims. 

“Politifact called Newsom's rhetoric "mostly false” and said he used “pseudo data” that is “out of context and is done in a way which is calculated to cause confusion,” Hanisee said. . . .

Expanded background checks discussed in the Sunday Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Colin McNickle has this piece in the Sunday Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

In its latest installment in a crusade to rid America of firearms, The New York Times “reports” on a “study” that purports to show how, in the first six years after Missouri “repealed the requirement for comprehensive background checks and purchase permits, the gun homicide rate was 16 percent to 18 percent higher than it was the six years before.”

Oh, what an indictment, eh? Well, not exactly.

The Times, which on Dec. 5 ran a front-page editorial (the first since 1920 when it took Republicans to task for nominating Warren G. Harding for president) against guns, was citing a study by Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. But as gun scholar John Lott Jr., president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, pointed out for me last week, “cherry picking” results tend to give you the results you're predisposed to seek.

As Mr. Lott found, in an exhaustive 2014 review of Mr. Webster's research, the results are more complicated than simply looking at what the average murder rates were before and after rescinding the Missouri law.

“While it is true that the murder rate in Missouri rose (about) 17 percent relative to the rest of the United States after the law was changed, it had actually increased by 32 percent during the five years prior to the change,” Lott then wrote.

Thus, the real question for researchers to consider, according to Lott, is why “the Missouri murder rate was increasing relative to the rest of the U.S. at a slower rate after the change in the law” — after the comprehensive background checks were scotched — “than it did prior to it.”

But the bottom line remains this: “Imposing the law raised murder and robbery rates,” Lott told me. “Removing the law lowered them.” . . .

The issue of cherry-picking is much broader than this.  The question is if you have 20 states that have had these expanded background checks, why pick only one state to look at?  If Missouri enacts this law in 1981 and rescinds it in 2007, why only look at when it is rescinded?  The proper way to examine this question is to look at it the way Lott did in the third edition of More Guns, Less Crime as it examined all the states that have adopted or rescinded these types of laws between 1977 and 2005.  Those estimate showed no benefit in expanded background checks reducing violent crime.

The silliness of background checks, a very simple way to defeat being on the "no-fly" list

Congressman Tom McClintock recounts his own experience being on the "no-fly" list.  How was McClintock able to get around the ban that he faced on flying?  He just had to fly under his middle name, which supposedly is "Miller."  Suppose that the IRA activist "that the British government was mad at" whose name was similar to McClintock's had also started using his middle name and that it was "Richard." If the federal government started trying to make sure that the person of interested couldn't go that route, then not only would people with the name "Tom McClintock" find themselves prevented from flying, but also people with the name "Richard McClintock" or "Rich McClintock."

From McClintock's speech on Thursday, December 10th, 2015:

“While serving in the California state Senate a decade ago, I discovered suddenly I couldn't check into a flight. When I asked why, I was told I was on this government list. The experience was absolutely "Kafkaesque." My first reaction was to ask, ‘Why am I on that list?’ ‘We can’t tell you.’ ‘What are the criteria you use?’ ‘That’s classified.’ ‘How can I get off this list?’ ‘You can’t.’  I soon discovered that another California state Senator had been placed on that list.  A few months later US Senator Edward Kennedy found himself on the list.  I at least had the office of  sergeant-at-arms of the state Senate to work through, something an ordinary American would not. Even so it took months working through that office, with repeated petitions to the government to get my name removed from that list.  And the farce of it all was that I was advised in the meantime just to fly under my middle name, which I did without incident . . . ."

Of course, the whole process is silly for another reason.  Take the recent revelation that ISIS has a machine that let's them make "perfect" fake Syrian passports for just a few hundred dollars.  Then the whole notion of denying people the ability to fly is worthless.  There are an infinite number of different names that could be placed on those fake passports.  With billions of dollars at their disposal, is it really serious to believe that ISIS could fake US documents?  Interestingly, illegal ("undocumented") aliens in the United States have been able to get driver's licenses in some states (such as New Mexico) and then use those licenses to get passports.  In any case, if "undocumented" people can get a driver's license, it raises the concern about the ability for terrorists to get around the federal background check system for purchasing guns.

So the "no-fly" background check system could be completely useless in stopping ISIS terrorists from flying, but may only make life miserable for law-abiding Americans.  (One slight clarification of McClintock's statements: Senator Kennedy was actually on the "no-fly" list five times.)

Of course, not everyone agrees.  On Friday, when discussing the "no-fly" list on MSNBC, US Senator Richard Blumenthal claimed: "There really as a practical matter are very few errors. A lot of public attention is given to them, but the fact of the matter is that anybody on this list by and large is subject to a reasonable suspicion of terrorist activity."  But the Senator is missing the point.  The issue isn't whether there is a "Tom McClintock," who is an IRA supporter, or some ISIS member who we know the real name of.  The issue is whether the "no-fly" list will actually catch these individuals if they try to fly on a plane.

All this also provides an additional reason for why using the "no-fly" list won't stop terrorists from buying guns.  In any case, virtually everyone who is stopped from buying a gun is a false positive, a law-abiding citizen who should have been able to buy but was caught in the Kafkaesque type world that McClintock found himself in.  It is something to consider as the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton keep pushing to use the "no-fly" for purchasing guns.

Newest piece at Fox News: “Hidden consequences of Washington State's gun background check Initiative 594”

My newest piece at Fox News that starts this way:

Let’s say a stalker is threatening a female friend of yours. She asks you if she can borrow your handgun. She is trained and has no criminal record. Should you loan her your gun? 

If you live in Washington State, loaning her your gun may soon make you a criminal and will likely land you in prison. 

Suppose you are a Boy Scout leader. Once a year, the scouts take a trip to a local farm where the boys earn their firearm merit badges. If you continue to stick with this annual ritual you may soon find yourself in prison. 

Those two examples illustrate just a couple of the hidden consequences for ordinary citizens if Washington State voters pass Initiative 594 on Tuesday -- the biggest gun control initiative on any state ballot this year. 

Gun control advocates are putting a huge effort into winning passage of the initiative. With $9.5 million from billionaires such as Michael Bloomberg, the initiative’s supporters are spending half as much as the NRA is spending on allpolitical campaigns and initiatives across the entire United States. 

Yet, despite a huge money advantage, gun control advocates are still using totally inaccurate claims to make their case to voters. 

Mark Kelly, who heads one of the organizations spearheading the initiative, made a very common claim for the initiative recently on CNN. He told host Jake Tapper: “right now 60 percent of all gun sales go–occur–with a background check. Why do we allow the 40 percent, the other 40 percent, to happen?” But even the normally anti-gun Washington Post has noted this claim is false and given it three out of four Pinocchios on its fact checker blog. . . .

The rest of the piece is available here.

Colorado's background check law prevents law-abiding woman getting back her gun

This woman has every legal right to own her gun, but she is being prevented from owning it for self defense.  From the Reporter-Herald in Loveland, Colorado:

The last time Sara Warren saw her personal handgun was in the ambulance after an accident on March 28. The police have refused to give the firearm back to her. 

The Loveland resident was taken to the Poudre Valley Hospital where her personal firearm was turned over to Fort Collins Police Services — where it's been ever since. 

Due to advice from the city attorney's office based on the Colorado gun transfer laws that went into effect July 1, 2013, the police have been unable to return her property. 

"I'm told there are other people in this situation," Sheriff Justin Smith said. "It's terrible when a law-abiding citizen gets caught up in something like this and it causes them to lose faith in their government." 

Warren said she used her Ruger compact SR9 handgun as protection during her work as a maid, entering strangers' homes alone. She has had to turn down work, not willing to risk her safety. 

"We had an opinion from our city attorney and district attorney not to return firearms without a (Federal Firearms License) check, and we don't have an FFL person in our office," said Fort Collins deputy chief Jim Szakmeister. . . . . 

GIven that this woman is a maid, forcing her to have to buy a new imposes a really high cost on her.  Even making her have to a fee for the transfer seems too much.

Newest piece at Investor's Business Daily: "Brady Law Has Done Little To Keep Guns Out Of Criminals' Hands"

The Brady Law stops law-abiding Americans, not criminals, from getting guns.  My newest piece at Investor's Business Daily starts this way:

Last Friday marked the 20th anniversary of the so-called Brady Law, a federal gun control in honor of James Brady, Ronald Reagan's former press secretary who was wounded in John Hinckley's assassination attempt.

Since it requires background checks on all guns purchased from federally licensed firearms dealers, gun control advocates celebrated the law's purported effectiveness.
The description by the Capitol newspaper The Hill was typical: "The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which took effect 20 years ago Friday, has blocked more than 2 million firearm sales, preventing 'countless' killings and other crimes, gun control advocates said at an event to mark the anniversary ... ." 

On Friday, the Brady Campaign claimed that half those blocked from purchasing a gun — over 1 million — were felons. 

Impressive numbers. But, alas, both are gross exaggerations. . . .

The Brady Law turned 20 years old on February 28th, a note on the news coverage

Unfortunately, The Hill newspaper has this all too typical take on the Brady Act.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which took effect 20 years ago Friday, has blocked more than 2 million firearm sales, preventing “countless” killings and other crimes, gun control advocates said at an event to mark the anniversary. . . . 

The Christian Science Monitor wrote something similar:

Assessing 20 years of the "Brady law," which requires licensed gun dealers to run background checks on all potential buyers, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence reported that at least 2 million purchases have been blocked – more than 1 million of them involving felons. Others thwarted were domestic abusers and fugitives, Brady officials say. . . .

Here is something that I had at Fox News on this very claim about 2 million prohibited people from buying guns.  What really should have been stated is that there were 2 million initial denials.

. . . The truth is, the databases the government uses to determine eligibility for gun purchases are rife with errors. 

This is the same problem experienced with the “No Fly” list. Remember the five timesthat the late Sen. Ted Kennedy was “initially denied” flights because his name was on the anti-terror “no fly” list? His name was just too similar to someone that we really did want to keep from flying. By Obama’s method of counting, that means the “no fly” list stopped five flights by terrorists. 

For gun purchases, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives dropped over 94 percent of “initial denials” after just the first preliminary review. The annual National Instant Criminal Background Check System report explains that these cases were dropped either because the additional information showed that the wrong people had been stopped or because the covered offenses were so many decades old that the government decided not to prosecute. At least a fifth of the remaining 6 percent were still false positives. 

All these denials mean delays for many law-abiding gun buyers. Although this is merely an inconvenience for most, initial denials cause dangerous delays for people who suddenly, legitimately need a gun for self-defense, such as a woman being stalked by an ex-boyfriend or spouse.Beyond the crashes in the computers doing the checks and the initial denials, another 6 percent of checks fail to be completed within two hours, with most delays winding up taking three days. . . .

Indeed, my own research suggests these delays from the background check system likely increase violent crime, even if ever so slightly. Perhaps not too surprisingly, rape appears to be the crime most sensitive to these delays. 

Furthermore, there is no real scientific evidence among criminologists and economists that background checks actually reduce crime. In fact, a 2004 National Academy of Sciences panel concluded that the Brady background checks didn't reduce any type of violent crime. Nor have other later studies found a beneficial effect. . . . 

The Washington Post has this blog post on how gun politics have changed since the Brady Act was adopted.  None of these changes are going to be a surprise to those who have followed the blog, though they will also notice that some of the polls picked here are somewhat selective.  For example, the Post picks the PEW poll on support for gun control whereas the Gallup and CNN polls show slightly more opposition.

Bogus research on universal background checks: Missouri and the Journal of Urban Health

For those who have been asked me about the claims that gun control works by looking at data on background checks in Missouri, please see this post here.

Gun control groups planning on pushing for another gun control vote in the Senate

From the Newtown Bee:

Brian Malte, senior policy director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence , said advocates will push to get another vote in the Senate on legislation that would broaden FBI background checks of gun buyers. That bill failed last year to get the 60 votes it needed to overcome a procedural hurdle in the Senate. Supporters were five votes short, and it’s doubtful they would be able to win them in an election year that features several Democrats running tough races in states that favor gun rights. . . .

Notes on Maryland Mall Shooting: mental health, background checks, gun-free zone

The Crime Prevention Research Center had this information on the attack occurring in a gun-free zone early yesterday afternoon.

I had one other thought on the attack.  If Darion Aguilar was trying to simply kill a former girl friend and her boyfriend, I don't think that explosives would be used in addition to the shotgun.  Yet, Aguilar brought explosives.  This strikes me as more of an attempt to settle a personal score.

Nor is a simple attack against a girlfriend consistent with 16 shots being fired.  From ABC News the day after the event:

Police said Aguilar used a 12-gague shot gun during the incident and 16 shots were fired. In addition to the gun and ammunition, crude explosive devices made from flash powder and household items were found in Aguilar's backpack. . . . .  

Aside from the three dead, five other people were injured. One person, who was below the Zumiez store during the shooting, suffered a gunshot wound to the foot and others had minor injuries as they ran to escape the shooting, according to police. . . .

No amount of effort on mental health seems like to have stopped this attack: "Maryland Mall Shooter Darion Marcus Aguilar Was 'Gentle Person,' Mom Says"
Nor would background checks have made any difference: "Md. mall shooter Darion Aguilar a ‘good kid’ with no criminal record, no known mental issues"

Bill O'Reilly gets it wrong on Gun Background Checks

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook

O'Reilly is wrong about the polls on background checks (see my discussion available here). On the benefit from such background checks see this discussion.

If DC Navy Yard Shooter could get on a military base using someone else's ID, how could background checks have stopped him from buying a gun

From CBS in DC:

One gunman — identified as 34-year-old Aaron Alexis of Fort Worth, Texas — is also dead, and police are searching for a second possible attacker who may be disguised in a military-style uniform, authorities say. Alexis is believed to have gotten into the Navy Yard by using someone else’s identification card. It is not yet clear if that individual was an accomplice or if that person’s ID card was stolen. . . .

New Quinnipiac poll of Colorado voter shows most oppose state's new gun control laws

From Quinnipiac University:

. . . All voters oppose 54 - 40 percent the stricter new gun control laws which led to the recall effort. Democrats support the stricter laws 78 - 16 percent, while opposition is 89 - 7 percent among Republicans and 56 - 39 percent among independent voters. Women are divided on the stricter laws 48 - 45 percent, with men opposed 64 - 33 percent.  

"With wide partisan and gender divisions, Colorado voters oppose the state's stricter new gun control laws, but they don't want to recall State Senate President John Morse or Sen. Angela Giron because they supported these laws," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "Philosophically, voters don't want a recall election every time they disagree with a legislator. They'd rather deal with it every four years." . . .

There is some disconnect between the individual parts of the gun laws and the overall feelings that people have to the new laws.  Could it be that while they support background checks in principle, the fees for transfers aren't popular?

Colorado voters support 82 - 16 percent requiring background checks for all gun buyers. Support is strong among all groups.

Voters are divided 49 - 48 percent on a ban on the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than 15 rounds.

Colorado's new gun laws will make the state less safe, 40 percent of voters say, while 37 percent say the state will be safer and 16 percent say the laws won't make a difference.

Background checks and a limit on magazines could not have prevented the Columbine or Aurora mass killings, voters say 68 - 25 percent, and could not have reduced the number of people killed in those shootings, voters say 56 - 40 percent. . . .

Obama administration's double standard on background checks: They oppose voter IDs and criminal background checks by employers, but support criminal background checks for guns

The Obama administration has pushed to block voter ID requirements because they reportedly discriminate against minorities.

The Obama administration on Monday blocked a new law in Texas requiring voters to show photo identification before they can cast a ballot, citing a concern that it could harm Hispanic voters who lacked such documents. 

The law, which was approved in May 2011, required voters to show government-issued photo identification, such as a driver's license, military identification card, birth certificate with a photo, current U.S. passport, or concealed handgun permit. 

The Justice Department said that data from Texas showed that almost 11 percent of Hispanic voters, or more than 300,000, did not have a driver's license or state-issued identification card, and that plans to mitigate those concerns were incomplete. . . .

 The Obama administration also opposes companies engaging in criminal background checks for their employees.  A nice summary is available from Judicial Watch:

BMW and Dollar General are “very serious systematic race discrimination cases,” according to the EEOC’s general counsel. The agency found “statistical disparities” in the hiring rates of “blacks and nonblacks” after the companies ran criminal-background checks. Dollar General revoked conditional employment offers for 10% of its black applicants but only 7% of “nonblack” applicants during a three-year period, the EEOC revealed, calling it a “gross disparity” based on race. 

BMW’s offense was requiring that employees of a new logistics contractor undergo criminal background checks in 2008. Of the 645 employees who would work at the auto maker’s South Carolina plant, 88 were terminated based on their criminal record. The EEOC says because 80% of the terminated employees were black, BMW “disproportionately screened out African Americans from jobs.” 

Since Obama became president, the EEOC has pushed hard to deter companies from using criminal background checks to screen job applicants because the administration says it discriminates against blacks. Last year soft drink manufacturer Pepsi Co. paid $3.13 million to settle EEOC charges that its screening policy discriminates against blacks by improperly using criminal checks. . . . 

See also this:

Alert to Federal contractors:  The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has added criminal background checks to its compliance checklist. 

On Jan. 29, 2013, OFCCP issued Directive 306, notifying federal contractors and subcontractors that use of criminal background checks to screen applicants for open positions may violate Title VII. OFCCP noted that because racial and ethnic minorities are arrested and convicted at a higher rate than whites, excluding job seekers based upon their criminal history may be discriminatory. 

OFCCP indicated its intent to follow the EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance on the use of arrest and conviction records issued on April 25, 2012. In that Guidance, EEOC noted that use of criminal background checks can lead to: (1) disparate treatment (e.g., intentionally treating a white job applicant with a criminal conviction differently than a minority job applicant); or (2) disparate impact (e.g., a neutral policy of excluding job applicants with criminal histories, but such policy disproportionately screens out certain racial or ethnic groups). To avoid claims of disparate impact, an employer’s policy or practice of excluding applicants based upon criminal history must be job-related and consistent with business necessity.  

OFCCP stated it is aware of contractors posting job announcements that categorically exclude applicants with arrest or conviction records or require applicants to have a “clean” criminal record.  OFCCP believes these practices likely violate federal discrimination laws. . . . 

Yet, surely these same problems exist for background checks for people buying guns.  But Democrats don't seem to care that their rules are preventing poor blacks or Hispanics from getting guns for self defense. 

Note that this inconsistency doesn't go the other way.  I don't oppose background checks for guns because of the fact that people don't have IDs.  I oppose them because virtually every one who is denied is a false positive. 

Former President George H.W. Bush meets with Gabrielle Giffords about gun control

Presumably George H.W. Bush met with Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and her husband Mark Kelly because he thinks that they are pushing the right issue (I have tried to explain why that isn't the case here).  Bush's meeting them sure helps get them publicity when they are on their seven state tour.   That is too bad because despite the obvious appeal of the regulations, they are actually counter productive.  From The Hill newspaper:

. . . Giffords spokeswoman Pia Carusone told ABC they had lunch at Bush’s home in Kennebunkport, Maine.  

Giffords and Kelly are in the midst of a seven-state bus tour to push lawmakers to enact tougher background checks on firearm purchases. The tour is targeting states home to senators who voted against a bipartisan background check bill in April She also is meeting with families of victims of the mass shooting in Sandy Hook Elementary School. 

Giffords last met with former President Bush and his wife Barbara Bush in Houston where she was recovering from the serious injuries she suffered after she was shot in the head during a constituent event in Tucson, Ariz. two years ago. Those injuries forced her to step down from Congress. 

Giffords has become a vocal advocate for tougher gun control laws, forming the PAC, Americans for Responsible Solutions, which she hopes will be a counterweight to the National Rifle Association. . . .

A couple pieces that I have in the Columbus Dispatch and the New Hampshire Union Leader on Gabrielle Giffords and Mark Kelly's gun control campaign

Former Arizona Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly, are on a tour this week to attack Senators who voted against the Senate gun control law in April.  Here are two pieces that I have written on their claims about polling and the claimed benefits from background checks.  Here is part of the piece that I had in the Columbus Dispatch:

While deserving our greatest sympathy for the tragedy they have personally suffered, Giffords and Kelly are plain wrong about the “common-sense gun-control proposals” they advocate. 

The couple’s message emphasizes polling data, which they claim finds that 80 percent to 90 percent of Americans are in favor of expanded background-checks legislation. They argue that Portman doesn’t care about what his constituents want or whether laws will save lives but simply whether the NRA will give him money. As Kelly puts it, “How do you balance what your constituents want with how much money is going to be spent against you in your next election?” 

The polls showing such overwhelming support really ask little more than whether people want to stop criminals from obtaining guns, not whether voters actually favor the legislation that Giffords and Kelly support. 

For example, a mid-April poll by the Pew Research Center provides one such illustration when it asks voters whether they were happy that the Senate bill had been defeated. While 67 percent of Democrats were “disappointed” or “angry” about the defeat, more Republicans and independents were “ very happy” or “relieved” than upset by the defeat. 

Kelly often points out how the approval rating for some of the senators who voted against gun control has dropped over the past six months or so. Most of this polling is from the Democratic polling firm Public Policy Polling. Rasmussen Reports finds President Barack Obama’s own disapproval rating on guns also rose by 13 percentage points from February to early June. In April, a Quinnipiac University poll found only 41 percent of Americans approved of Obama's stand on gun control. . . .

Here is part of what I had in the New Hampshire Union Leader:

Consider “background checks.” According to Kelly: “40 percent of all Americans who buy a gun buy it without a background check.” That is simply false. You can only get a number even close by counting within-family gifts and inheritances as sales. 

How we buy guns is already quite different than it was during the early 1990s. Prior to the Brady Act going into effect on Feb. 28, 1994, half the states required background checks, but federal law only required that people sign a statement saying under threat of perjury that they did not have a criminal record or a history of mental problems. Today, federally licensed dealers check whether potential gun buyers have not committed a felony or many types of misdemeanor convictions, have not been dishonorably discharged from the military, and have not been involuntarily committed for mental illness. 

The 40 percent figure rounds up a claim that 36 percent of transfers were done without a background check, and that number came from a small, 251-person survey conducted two decades ago, from November 1991 to December 1994. That is the only study done, and most of the survey covered sales before the Brady Act instituted mandatory federal background checks, telling us nothing about background checks after the law. . . . 

Some information on Kelly's views.

MARK KELLY: I think any bill that does not include a universal background check is a mistake. It's the most common sense thing that we can do to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from having access to weapons.
I mean, the system that we have right now, we have 40 percent of all Americans who buy a gun buy it without a background check, and that's probably where most of the criminals and the mentally ill are going. I mean, we know from a poll that has been done with criminals in prison that over 80 percent of them get them through that loophole.
So, it would be a mistake not to address the thing that 92 percent of American households support and 74 percent of NRA members support, which is the universal background check. . . .
KELLY: Well, you know, we went in there, my executive director and ours, the executive of our organization, and in five minutes and 36 seconds is the time it took to fill out one piece of paper. You only have to fill out one side and for it to be submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and get an answer. Five minutes and 36 seconds.
So, what it shows you is that it is not the burden that the NRA leadership says, what a background check is. I mean, it's a simple, common sense thing we can do to make sure the criminals and the mentally ill can't have access to firearms. . . .
WALLACE: Well, let's talk about that, because in Gabby's tragic case, the shooter, Jared Loughner, had been suspended from college because he was deemed to be a threat to himself and to others. He went to a gun store, he got a gun, passed a background check. And, yet he was able then of course to go out and shoot Gabby and 18 other people.
And, the NRA says the problem, the problem with the background check is that -- the kind of mental health information, for instance in Loughner's case, doesn't get passed on, so it doesn't get to be part of the background check. . . . 

Mark Kelly's claim about 1.7 million prohibited people being stopped from buying guns because of background checks is available here.  Kelly's op-ed in Politico, CNN, and the Houston Chronicle contains many similar claims.  Information on their trips to these states to put pressure on the Senators is available here.

Joe Biden claims that five Senators want to change their votes on background checks

Joe Biden keeps pushing on gun control.  It is amazing that Biden claims that there are five Senators who want to switch their vote on background checks when they need to pick up six votes to have Reid bring up the bill again (the original vote was 54 to 46).  As of right now it is a claim that he will never have to prove.  From Politico:

. . . Speaking to the U.S. Conference of Mayors in Las Vegas, Biden said the 45 senators who voted to block the background checks deal brokered by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) have seen “the bottom fall out” of their approval ratings. 

Biden said, as he did Tuesday during a gun violence event at the White House, that he has been fielding calls from senators interested in signing on to some kind of gun control measure. On Friday he offered slightly more specific detail about the number of senators and the difficult path ahead for gun control legislation. . . . 

“I’ve had at least five senators call me and say, ‘Can’t we do something about this?’” Biden said. “The calculus has changed, and so we’re in an effort to try to work out how we can provide another opportunity for those who voted no to change their vote. We all know that’s the hardest thing in politics, to change your vote. That’s why we’ve got to get a rationale, another reason why this could be done by changing the specifics of the legislation.” . . .

With six month anniversary of Newtown, Obama and Bloomberg continue major push for more gun control, but no explanation for how the law would have stopped that attack

info@barackobama.com sent out the following email today in support of the passing background checks.

My mom, Dawn Hochsprung, was the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Six months ago today, she was shot and killed in her school, along with five of her coworkers and 20 of her students. In the weeks and months after that horrible day, lawmakers from across the country told us, the families of the victims, that they'd take action to make our communities safer. What we found out is that, for some of our members of Congress, those were empty promises. And in those six months, thousands more people have been killed by guns. I've been doing everything I can to reach out to members of Congress. But my voice isn't enough. Today, on the six-month anniversary of Newtown, every single person who cares about reducing gun violence in America needs to recommit to this fight.

In her last minutes, Mom was just as brave and caring as I knew her to be. After telling everyone to hide, she went running into the hallway, saw the gunman, yelled and lunged at him in an effort to protect the school she loved. I miss her every second of every day. I'm getting married in just a few weeks -- to a guy she was rooting for, in a dress we picked out together -- but because a dangerous man got his hands on a gun, my mom won't be there to see it. I'm still grieving -- and I'm not alone. On average, 33 Americans are killed by a gun every single day. That's 33 new families a day who mourn like I do. If a background check saves even one life, and keeps even one family from hurting like this, then this fight will all be worth it. I think my mom would like to know that the tragedy that fell on Newtown meant that another tragedy could be stopped before it even started. I'm asking you to join me today, six months after that horrible day, to keep this fight going -- take action for my mom, Dawn, and the 25 other people who we lost in December.

What does Newtown have to have with background checks?  No notion of how these laws would increase crime.  Again, Obama is making the argument that if one life is saved to justify this law, but the real question is the net effect effect it has on crime.

And from Bloomberg:

Mayors Against Illegal Guns will launch a bus tour that will travel to 25 states over 100 days to build support for background checks legislation. Legislation to expand background checks for gun buyers failed in the Senate in April.
The mayors group is also holding events in 10 states calling for lawmakers to expand background checks and urging senators who opposed the bill to reconsider. Those events, which include gun violence survivors and gun owners, will be held in Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Montana, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Ohio and Pennsylvania. . . .  

Obama's push for gun control, not going away

Politico announces that the administration will start pushing gun control again next week:

Vice President Joe Biden will try to restart the dormant gun control push next week with an event to tout the administration’s progress in combatting gun violence. 

The June 18 White House event will mark the first time Biden or President Barack Obama has held a public event on gun control since the Senate rejected expanded background checks for gun purchases April 17. . . .

But Biden apparently couldn't wait until the 18th.  Democrats are trying to divide the Republican party on the issue by blaming two Senators for forcing the other Republicans to vote against.

“On the gun issue, I don’t care what your position is -- I called 17 senators out, 9 of whom were Republicans. ... Not one of offered an explanation on the merits of why they couldn’t vote for the background check. But almost to a person, they said, ‘I don’t want to take on Ted Cruz. I don’t want to take on Rand Paul. They’ll be in my district.’ 

“I actually said, ‘Are you kidding? These are two freshman,’” Biden said, according to the pool report.  . . .

Meanwhile, Mayor Bloomberg is trying to put more pressure on the few Democrats who voted against the new regulations. 

Bloomberg is contacting more than 2,000 Democratic New York donors telling them not to give money to Sens. Max Baucus, Mark Begich, Mark Pryor and Heidi Heitkamp after they joined Republicans to block a bill expanding background checks on gun sales, POLITICO’s Mike Allen reports in Playbook. . . .

Of course, Baucus isn't running for re-election and Heitkamp isn't up again for 5 more years.